MY Pentium D 805 2.66 Experience * Good Info *

[Guest pcharles25]

i just got my (3) 2.66 Pentium D Processors from New Egg.

 

First i would like to say using the same board MSI 945GM3-F

as with the 2.8 celery with...

 

" I am very pleased with the P-D 805 2.66 CPU Performance in OSX "!

OSX makes Both cores do what they gotta do!.

 

Plays 1080p Trailers smooth like silk~!

 

If you are planning on building a hackintosh i highly recommend

this board and this cpu. The Rumors of this processor being HOT

are just not correct this CPU sails all day long not over 103 Degrees F.

 

The 2.8 celery i was using produced more heat. 108 to 112 mainly because it

was working its ass off all the dam time. It could Barely play 720p trailers, It would

but i had to wait for it to finish downloading to free up IO.

 

Parallels also likes this cpu, This cpu may not support Virt... I cannot notice the difference!

this machine is hands down much faster then my ! -24" iMac Core 2 2.13

and seems to produce less heat.

 

I don't care if any of you believe me or not. I have nothing to hide.

all you have to gain if you buy this hardware is a Lightning Fast MAC!

 

I 100% guarantee you will be impressed.

 

MSI 945GM3-F (Full OSX86 Support)

$42.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...82E16813130060R

 

CPU INTEL|PD 805 775 2.66G 2x1M % - OEM (Qty=1, Price=$59.99)

That price is what i paid with shipping included.

Sorry for the time being looks like new egg is out of stock with this processor

maybe the video i made caused a inventory reduction.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6922443951464729801

 

i love this memory i always buy it from new egg!

CORSAIR XMS2 1GB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 675 (PC2 5400) Desktop Memory - Retail

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145573

44.99 free shipping... you cannot beat the price for this great quality memory.

 

Below i am including pictures of my laser infra red temp gun

the computer was on all day.

[StrangerDanger]

awesome video man. very helpful and informational. too bad new-egg's out of the oem 805's

[Azurael]

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/skusearch.hmx?S...ne&nextloc=

 

Cheaper is not necessarily better - The cost of running it for a year in electricity will easily cover the cost difference, and then the extra performance is free!

 

Pentium Ds are yesterday's news and nobody should be buying them today. At the time they were out, the X2 was a better purchase at the same price-point, and today, they still are, plus anything Core 2-based is even better, especially if you need an Intel-chipset mobo for compatibility. Even castrated to 1MB of L2, they outperform anything Netburst-based at double the clock in most apps.

[Guest pcharles25]

I 100% disagree. OSX loves the P-D 805 2.66 and it runs

 

Quiet, Powerful, Cool I have an amp meter going from my power strip to my wall...

what i have hooked up:

What you saw in the picture...

Board, chip, memory

320 gig Seagate SATA-II

15 inch LCD

Apple HI-FI

Brother Laser printer

400 watt power supply.

 

I consume RMS 140 to 155 watts of electricity so shush your mouth with your nonsense.

Why the {censored} would i suggest it if it was not awesome?

 

This configuration is the Most Performance for the Lowest buck!

The community benefits...

[iDerf2006]

I 100% disagree. OSX loves the P-D 805 2.66 and it runs Quiet, Powerful, Cool I have an amp meter going from my power strip to my wall... what i have hooked up:What you saw in the picture...Board, chip, memory320 gig Seagate SATA-II15 inch LCDApple HI-FIBrother Laser printer400 watt power supply.I consume RMS 140 to 155 watts of electricityso shush your mouth with your nonsense.Why the {censored} would i suggest it if it was not awesome?I have no MONITORY GAIN here Freek.This configuration is the Most Performance for the Lowest buck!I am trying to help the community un-like you and your big mouth.The link below for that Core 2 from mwave was not that bad of a deal.but 87 dollars plus shipping ... the 805 P-D is going to end up about half the price as that andprobably would out preform that in a heart beat... You could not do 1080p with that chip form mwave... Not enough clock speed. a 1.8ghz mac mini for 799.00 will not do 1080p... This is a very simple bench mark... Try it.... if you system will do 1080p then it will do about anything else flawlessly!Again my information here is only to help... i have Zero Monitory Gain here... i am only spendingmy time trying to give back to this community we all love.

Thanks for attempting to help, but, err.. can you let him have his opinion and you have your opinions? Please? Everyone stay friendly.

[Guest pcharles25]

Yeah you right.

 

Sorry Fellers'

 

I have been dealing with craigslist {censored}s all day didnt mean to talk it out on you.

 

* hug *

[Azurael]

Remember, clock speed means nothing any more, especially when you've thrown a Netburst-based chip into the equation. I can guarantee you the Pentium E2160 I linked to will decode 1080p with substantially lower power consumption, and probably also a lower percentage of CPU usage - I know, because I've played back 1080p H.264 on mine at stock speed with around 50% CPU usage under OS X with Quicktime (of course it's much lower with VLC ). My Pentium D 925 (which is clocked at 3GHz) pegged at about 75% to play back the same file!

 

I speak from experience here...

 

Anyway, yes, sorry if you thought my post was aggressive or hostile, I'm just saying that I don't think a Pentium D is worth buying today, and I was somewhat annoyed when I bought my 925 that the E2160 came out about a week later. Even that has been replaced by a hand-me-down E4300 form my main rig now I get through CPUs fast!

[Guest pcharles25]

yes... well i am sure they will be getting some back soon. You want something thats at-least 2.33 ghz dual core. The benchmark of being able to play 1080p, shows you that you have a fairly screaming mac! If you can do 1080p then you can do anythingelse Flawlessly. That has been my rule.

 

Just giving back to the community that make's it all worthwhile.

[Azurael]

If that's what you want to believe - especially with a dual core on a 533MHz bus... I dread to think where you got the idea that an E2160 can't play back 1080p from, but I assure you it's far from the truth. I'm sorry to tell you this, but if you think the D805 is not only cheaper, but faster than the E2160 under ANY circumstance, you need your head screwed back on straight.

 

Even Intel's own (who took several years to finally admit that NetBurst sucks!) marketing materials show the E2160 as substantially faster than a Pentium D 925, which in turn is substantially faster than the 805...

 

If you need a direct comparison to prove a point, I can't really provide one, but the E2160 performs within a couple of percent of the E4300:

 

 

Yes; it's faster than a D945. Are you still going to try and convince me a 2.66GHz Pentium D is faster?

 

I think I know what I'm talking about, as somebody who owns a Pentium D 925 (3GHz, 2MBx2) AND a Pentium E2160 (1.80GHz, 1MB shared) and has used both CPUs in an otherwise identical setup including playing back 1080p if you believe that's the deciding factor in system performance, so please stop trying to convince people of your falsehoods. I would have left it at my first post if you hadn't upfront said I was wrong, but you left it to the challenge. Sorry. CLOCK SPEED MEANS NOTHING. Alright; get it yet?

[Guest pcharles25]

i know it for a fact.

 

your chip will not do 1080p

 

Try it.

 

Clock speed very much still matters with a Dual-Core Setup.

i don't care bout those bull benchmarks.

 

1080p is what i am talking about. That is the real benchmark.

 

I have Zero benefit to convince some one that is hardheaded

of anything...

 

I am talking about RAW items here... COST, Performance and

ability to get easily from a reliable online source (new egg)

 

Yes, The Pentium D 805 2.66 is the cats meow...

Inexpensive, Fast, Reliable, Cool Running = Awesome processor for OSX86

[Azurael]

I give up... This is clearly just flamebait.

 

You clearly don't know for a fact, because as you would have noticed from reading my previous posts if you'd extracted your head from your ass for one moment, I HAVE played back 1080p H.264, which is the most CPU intensive format to decode on BOTH chips. Both can do it fine, but the load is higher on the Pentium D by a substantial margin, and my Pentium D is faster than yours. You clearly can't read.

 

Fin.

 

Edit: By the way

 

 

 

Cool running? You pull that claim out of your ass too?

[Guest pcharles25]

its about time. I have a picture of the temp using my Laser Guided TEMP Gun on the first post

" i am not pulling anything out of my ass "

 

 

What i am saying is the processor in the link you provided ...

the mwave link...is not going to do 1080p H.264 is what i have been talking

about the whole time. The the 2.66 P-D Does it at 75%

utilization of both cores. The processor you have in the link for 87.00

plus shipping... will not that is my point entirely...

 

Fin.

[Azurael]

You still can't read. Did you try 1080p playback on an E2160? No, I didn't think so, because if you had, as I have, you'd have realized it can handle it just fine.

 

As the load on my 3GHz Pentium D was nigh on 75% playing back the same clip, I would imagine, in fact, depending on how well threaded your playback app is, that you would NOT be able to play back the H.264 1080p clip I was testing (one from the BBC motion gallery) on a 2.66GHz Pentium D without dropping frames, for that matter. Don't bother wasting my time by telling me it plays back less-compressed 1080p as my old 2GHz Pentium M can do that in VLC!

 

I genuinely can't believe you're fighting tooth and nail to defend something as rubbish as a Pentium D (and a slow clocked, hot running, 90nm one at that, not even one of the thankfully sub-100W 65nm versions). Get over it; the rest of the computer industry did more than a year ago!

 

Whatever you may believe, the figures don't add up. Sorry, it's a fact.

[Guest pcharles25]

i had a 2.16 core2 4meg cache 24" iMac i Paid 2350.00 us dollars for and i could barely do 1080p that is why i sold the POS, I built my own mac that is better and at a fraction of the price.

 

and that is what i have done here with the P-D 2.66 it is a very awesome processor

at a very awesome price and will do anything you throw its way.

[iDerf2006]

i had a 2.16 core2 4meg cache 24" iMac i Paid 2350.00 us dollars for and i could barely do 1080p that is why i sold the POS, I built my own mac that is better and at a fraction of the price.

 

and that is what i have done here with the P-D 2.66 it is a very awesome processor

at a very awesome price and will do anything you throw its way.

Just so you know, my 1.83GHz Core Duo in my MacBook Pro, which is worse than his E2160 probably, can handle 1080p perfectly 100% fine without skipping a beat. Your "facts" are anything but.

[Guest pcharles25]

i had a MBP 1.83 core duo when it first came out.. and it could not do 1080p it would skip

it just couldn't keep up sorry...

 

I have bought all these Macs... they are {censored}.

[iDerf2006]

i had a MBP 1.83 core duo when it first came out.. and it could not do 1080p it would skip

it just couldn't keep up sorry...

 

I have bought all these Macs... they are {censored}.

Just tried it again. Doesn't drop a frame. Infact, it looks like even the Core Duo 1.66GHz in the Mac mini works without skipping frames, if these users are to be believed (which I have no reason to believe they shouldn't be.)

http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Mini_Core_Duo_1...._Faster_than_G4

 

All evidence points against your "proven facts", sorry..

[Azurael]

I think you must have had something set up very strangely on you iMac & MacBook Pro for that to be the case, maybe something to do with SpeedStep or a buggy graphics driver, since I can't even blame bus speed here as were talking about a crappy 533MHz bus on the Pentium D in comparison to the 667MHz (which also hampers performance substantially) on the iMac & MBP.

 

I do not intend to change your mind and nor am I trying to prevent your enjoyment of your system. I (and most members of the forum will agree with me here) am merely stating you have your facts wrong if you believe a ~1.8GHz Core 2 Duo architecture chip is slower than a 2.66GHz dual core Netburst architecture chip in anything but clock speed, or indeed not a behemoth in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. I am asking politely that you don't try to tell me things a CPU can and cannot do when I have done it myself, and you clearly haven't!

 

Edit: Come to think of it, I think I have seen 1080p playback on a 1.6GHz Core (Not 2) duo Mac mini, so it sounds like you're just doing something wrong for it not to work on a 1.86GHz & 2.4GHz C2D!

[Guest pcharles25]

well your all wrong. MBP sux, iMac Sux, Mac mini Sux, Mac Pro Sux,

 

Everything Sux's except what i make.

 

Dollar for dollar,

You get a better mac building your self with the Pentium D 2.66 OEM

from New Egg

[iDerf2006]

I think you must have had something set up very strangely on you iMac for that to be the case, maybe something to do with SpeedStep or a buggy graphics driver, since I can't even blame bus speed here as were talking about a crappy 533MHz bus on the Pentium D in comparison to the 667MHz (which also hampers performance substantially) on the iMac.

 

I do not intend to change your mind and nor am I trying to prevent your enjoyment of your system. I (and most members of the forum will agree with me here) am merely stating you have your facts wrong if you believe a ~1.8GHz Core 2 Duo architecture chip is slower than a 2.66GHz dual core Netburst architecture chip in anything but clock speed, or indeed not a behemoth in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. I am asking politely that you don't try to tell me things a CPU can and cannot do when I have done it myself, and you clearly haven't!

Agreed.

 

well your all wrong.your all wrong.

Okay, if you say so.

[Guest pcharles25]

:-)

 

Yes i do say so.

[Azurael]

my 1.83GHz Core Duo in my MacBook Pro, which is worse than his E2160 probably

Thanks for backing me up here, although actually, we're talking about a 1.83GHz C2D with 4MB of L2 on a 667MHz bus against a 1.80GHz C2D with 1MB of L2 on an 800MHz bus here, so your CPU would be faster in anything that didn't depend very heavily on memory access (which is hampered by the mobile chips' slower FSB.) It's still within probably less than 10% though.

:-)Yes i do say so.

I knew I should have given up this fight earlier Why do I get involved?

[Guest pcharles25]

Your Mac Pro Sux!

 

 

 

* hug *

[StrangerDanger]

Does anyone know if that MSI Board pc charles has can be overclocked with a 1.8 C2D ? >_< noob here... Thanks for any responds.

[Guest pcharles25]

its not a very good board for over clocking